RE: [Leica] A Red Dot story

["Carleton, Sam" <Sam.Carleton@FMR.COM>]

<< I've said this many times before (and here I go again), but I honestly
can't understand the calls for such "improvements" to the M camera as faster
shutter/sync speeds, AE, back loading, auto advance and rewind, etc.  For
those of us needing features that the M lacks, but that are available in
hundreds of other cameras, why not just go with the Nikon, Canon, Konica, or
whatever camera that has them, and thus get the tools you require? The fact
that the M is uncluttered by such stuff is the reason that many of us have
chosen to use it in the first place.
If I wanted a camera that could autofocus by following my eyeball, I
wouldn't wait for Leica to add that feature to the M; I'd go out and buy the
Canon that can do it today. >>

I really want to lets this topic go, it is not going anywhere, but this I
need to reply to.  I agree with you 100% on things like AE, back loading,
auto advance and rewind.  But a faster shutter/sync speed is a totally
different things.  The faster shutter is simply improving what is already
there.  You seek of the simplicity of the M, I agree.  I do not believe that
a faster shutter is going to add complexity, look, or feel of the camera.
This is no different then the M6 and M6 TTL, if I am not mistaken someone
could pick up either one and shoot ambient light and never know nor care if
the M6 was a TTL or pre TTL body.  But for those of us that use a flash and
want TTL, it would make all the difference in the world.
I agree with you 100%, the AE and auto stuff would be a crime to add to the
M6.  It is not right, sort of like making a family version four door of a
Ferrari, or a sports version of a mini van, it simply does not fit, it is
not right.  But on the other hand, allowing a Ferrari or mini van to have a
better sound system, if you like music when you drive, use it.  If you like
to hear the engine or the kids, don't use it.  Having it is not going to how
one drives the car, simply add something IF the driver wants to take
advantage of it!
Sam


	-----Original Message-----
	From:	Guy Bennett [SMTP:gbennett@lainet.com]
	Sent:	Friday, June 01, 2001 11:50 AM
	To:	leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
	Subject:	RE: [Leica] A Red Dot story

	Sam wrote:
	>I have been trying to figure out why folks had such a problem with
adding
	>something like a higher flash sync to the M6. I understand that
they don't
	>feel the need for it because they don't use a flash, but then there
are a
	>lot of features on my F5 that I don't use, but I don't mind if the
camera
	>has the features.  Why should I care if the camera has
functionality that I
	>don't use?  The F5 does for me what I want it to, thus I use it and
love.  I
	>don't moan and groan because it does MORE then I need it to.
	[snip]
	>Giving the M6 a faster flash sync would not make it require
batteries, would
	>not give it any auto anything. I do believe a higher flash sync
would also
	>result in a higher top shutter speed.  In all respects the camera
would be
	>the exact same as what you non flash photographers are using today,
with the
	>exception of the cost, it might go up a few hundred.


	Sam,

	I'm no specialist, but this topic has been discussed many times
before and
	I seem to recall that the relatively slow high speed and sync speed
of the
	M are the result of the cloth shutter. In order to have faster
shutter
	speeds, the current cloth shutter would have to be replaced with a
new
	shutter that would permit the faster speeds. For many M users (and
	apparently for Leica), the quiet, reliable cloth shutter is one of
the M's
	defining characteristics and using a different shutter would mean
changing
	the camera more than they would like to, simply to have faster
shutter
	speeds that, though they might be desired by some, are not truly
necessary
	to make great pictures with the M.


	>I think I have it now why folks are moaning and growing about
making the M6
	>a better, more modern camera.  As Ted stated, he would not be able
to afford
	>the new M6, along with the others moaning and groaning.


	Here I think you've misread Ted. He was referring, I believe, to
those of
	us here on the list who habitually find fault with the M. In
addition to
	bemoaning it's lack of "features," they often complain that it's too
	expensive. I think Ted's point was that, should new features be
added and
	the price increased, they would complain all the more, and we've got
plenty
	of that already.

	I've said this many times before (and here I go again), but I
honestly
	can't understand the calls for such "improvements" to the M camera
as
	faster shutter/sync speeds, AE, back loading, auto advance and
rewind, etc.
	For those of us needing features that the M lacks, but that are
available
	in hundreds of other cameras, why not just go with the Nikon, Canon,
	Konica, or whatever camera that has them, and thus get the tools you
	require? The fact that the M is uncluttered by such stuff is the
reason
	that many of us have chosen to use it in the first place.

	If I wanted a camera that could autofocus by following my eyeball, I
	wouldn't wait for Leica to add that feature to the M; I'd go out and
buy
	the Canon that can do it today.

	Guy